@Reep: glad you liked it. I was really tempted to go see it twice in theaters.

Quote:

The way I saw it, is that Noah is a microcosm of the Old Testament, or at least Genesis, focused into one story.

I liked that element of the movie, how they echoed Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son, but instead of an Angel coming to stop Noah, it was Ila's faith, her willingness to sacrifice her two newborn children in service to god, that shook him and made him realize there was still goodness in mankind. With the way his kids, even his wife, were acting at that point in the movie, it's easier to understand why Noah would think god wanted all of human kind eradicated. Ila's role in the story was very touching and move me a great deal during that scene of the choice. Emma Watson really did a great job.

Quote:

The inclusion of Tubal-Cain was interesting and I ended up loving it.

I like Ray Winstone to begin with so it was easy to enjoy his character. The way they portrayed Tubal-Cain made an excellent contrast to Russel Crowe's Noah. Tubal-Cain carried a grudge against god. He felt like he was forsaken, and being that, he devoted himself to being a master of his own destiny.

Like many, I did open my bible up after seeing the movie. I didn't work out the math, but during that time, everyone had really long lifespans and I 'think' Tubal-Cain would have been around with Noah, or at least he could have been.

I thought the acting was all really good especially Russel Crowe as Noah.

Quote:

I was curious when I heard this was using elements from the Book of Enoch, because it's such a fascinating book, but I was a little surprised at how little was actually drawn from it...

It's been a while since I've read the Book of Enoch, and I only read it once, so a lot of it is vague in my memory. But those elements you mentioned would have been really cool to include in the movie, and it was definitely a miss opportunity. Had they gone that route, they could have included more mythical looking fantasy elements, and added more depth to those characters. Perhaps they opted to simplify that part in order to save money on the budget.

Now as for their being a conflict in their role in the movie, I thought it came down to them having to pay a price to go to Earth to help man, and once they turned back into service to God, they were rewarded.

My small gripe with them was at then end when that one Nephilim tears himself apart, essentially committing suicide, and yet is still redeemed. I thought that didn't ring true. On one hand, there's the stigma toward suicide, and on the other, he sort of rushed his reward when he probably could have fought on a little longer.

Aside from that, I kind of liked Nick Nolte voicing one of the Nephilim. His gravelly voice is perfect for a rock creature.

Quote:

I also loved how Aronofsky linked Noah getting drunk to what he had experienced.

You know, I hadn't acknowledged the importance of that connection in the film until you mentioned it. That's actually a lot more fitting that I realized it was. When watching the movie, I had forgot about the part in the bible where Noah gets drunk and they have to cover him.

Quote:

Visually, it was mostly impressive, though some parts looked fakey because of all the CGI.

The cartoony like scenes of early history was a little off putting, and the fallen angels looked a little off at first, too, but the CGI for the animals was really well done.

As for the other stuff, I had no issues with them referring to God as the creator, with the protecting of life to the extent of vegetarianism, and with the descendants of Cain being portrayed as evil polluters mirroring the fears of corporations run amok in modern society with no concerns toward pollution and conservation. They're all valid topics to explore in storytelling, even during this time period._________________
"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:53 pm

Message

ReepicheepMaster

Joined: 05 Feb 2008Posts: 7613Location: Sailing into the unknown

Darth Skuldren wrote:

I liked that element of the movie, how they echoed Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son, but instead of an Angel coming to stop Noah, it was Ila's faith, her willingness to sacrifice her two newborn children in service to god, that shook him and made him realize there was still goodness in mankind. With the way his kids, even his wife, were acting at that point in the movie, it's easier to understand why Noah would think god wanted all of human kind eradicated. Ila's role in the story was very touching and move me a great deal during that scene of the choice. Emma Watson really did a great job.

Ila was a great addition. Towards the end I actually found myself hoping that an angel wouldn't appear to Noah like in the story with Abraham to tell him not to kill his grandchildren. Just for the sake of story, characters etc. I think using Ila the way they did was a much better choice. I think it was clear that Noah made the right choice, but it's ambiguous enough to keep it interesting.

Darth Skuldren wrote:

I like Ray Winstone to begin with so it was easy to enjoy his character. The way they portrayed Tubal-Cain made an excellent contrast to Russel Crowe's Noah. Tubal-Cain carried a grudge against god. He felt like he was forsaken, and being that, he devoted himself to being a master of his own destiny.

See, I only know Ray Winstone as the voice of Mr. Beaver in Narnia. I didn't even know it was him until afterwards.

Darth Skuldren wrote:

My small gripe with them was at then end when that one Nephilim tears himself apart, essentially committing suicide, and yet is still redeemed. I thought that didn't ring true. On one hand, there's the stigma toward suicide, and on the other, he sort of rushed his reward when he probably could have fought on a little longer.

Hmm. I don't recall.

Darth Skuldren wrote:

The cartoony like scenes of early history was a little off putting, and the fallen angels looked a little off at first, too, but the CGI for the animals was really well done.

I've been debating whether I think the Watchers were a good or bad thing for the story overall. Even though I would like the Watchers to be included, with the changed backstory and the cartoony animation, I would have rather they not be in the movie personally. I did like the animals though._________________
Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 8:26 pm

Message

Jedi JoeMaster

Joined: 11 Jun 2009Posts: 1652

I saw The Amazing Spider-Man 2 today. The first one was really promising and gave me a lot of hope for the franchise, but this one took away any momentum the first one gave. There was no direction, the plot was jumbled and there was just way too much going on.

Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)

I honestly thought the Green Goblin should have been saved for the third one, because he was just waaay too rushed. Harry should have been introduced, and they should have left it at that. His whole transformation at the end just felt so last-minute, much like Venom in Raimi's Spider-Man 3. It took away any significance Electro had with regards to the story.

However, I will say I like how they handled Gwen. She had a great chemistry with Peter and her death was heart-breaking. It's a shame that it was kind of a wasted moment given how bad the rest of the film was.

_________________Darth Vegas the unwise...

Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 12:20 pm

Message

Darth SkuldrenModerator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008Posts: 6844Location: Missouri

I saw The Amazing Spider Man 2 this weekend as well. It was a spur of the moment decision. I thought, hey, it's Marvel and a big budget Hollywood movie, safe bet, right? I have not seen the first one, but I thought that wouldn't be a problem.

Well, I was disappointed. This really seamed like a kids move. I didn't like the characterizations, which seemed weak, and I didn't like the plot, which was really thin. I'll not be going to see another Spider Man movie any time soon._________________
"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood

Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 7:01 pm

Message

Jedi JoeMaster

Joined: 11 Jun 2009Posts: 1652

^If you ever get the chance, watch the first one. So much better paced, IMO._________________Darth Vegas the unwise...

Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 6:05 pm

Message

ReepicheepMaster

Joined: 05 Feb 2008Posts: 7613Location: Sailing into the unknown

I watched my first Hayao Miyazaki movie, Howl's Moving Castle, last night. I was mesmerized. It was like nothing I had ever seen before. _________________
Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 8:20 pm

Message

Caedus_16Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008Posts: 5226Location: Korriban

Darth Skuldren wrote:

I saw The Amazing Spider Man 2 this weekend as well. It was a spur of the moment decision. I thought, hey, it's Marvel and a big budget Hollywood movie, safe bet, right? I have not seen the first one, but I thought that wouldn't be a problem.

Well, I was disappointed. This really seamed like a kids move. I didn't like the characterizations, which seemed weak, and I didn't like the plot, which was really thin. I'll not be going to see another Spider Man movie any time soon.

The new one is an absolute mess and a nightmare to deal with, but the first one wasn't as bad. It was streamlined, a bit more interesting._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Posted: Thu May 08, 2014 9:43 am

Message

Taral-DLOSMaster

Joined: 23 Nov 2010Posts: 1943Location: Ontario, Canada

Caedus_16 wrote:

Darth Skuldren wrote:

I saw The Amazing Spider Man 2 this weekend as well. It was a spur of the moment decision. I thought, hey, it's Marvel and a big budget Hollywood movie, safe bet, right? I have not seen the first one, but I thought that wouldn't be a problem.

Well, I was disappointed. This really seamed like a kids move. I didn't like the characterizations, which seemed weak, and I didn't like the plot, which was really thin. I'll not be going to see another Spider Man movie any time soon.

The new one is an absolute mess and a nightmare to deal with, but the first one wasn't as bad. It was streamlined, a bit more interesting.

Guys, I'm going to disagree. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was my favourite Spidey flick. I loved the villains, I loved the Peter/Gwen stuff. I loved constantly seeing stuff and being all "Squee!! Look, it's a reference to X!" I LOVED how Spidey's dialogue was snappy and jokey (like how he is in the books). I loved the villainous arc of Electro (especially that weird bit where the music merged with the voices in his head). Dane Dehaan was a bit weird.

And I loved everything about the end (which I admittedly saw coming from a mile away, but loved it regardless).

I'll have to disagree with most of what you said Taral. While I enjoyed Spidey's one-liners and his relationship with Gwen the rest was bunk. It was cut worse than Man of Steel, the pacing was absolutely awful and it ruined the movie. You can have all the good moments you want, if you don't put them together right then you still have a messy movie. The references were find, but the excess of them didn't balance.

Also..

Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)

While Dane DeHaan plays Harry better than Franco his Goblin was awful, and the entire origin was so circumstantial it felt stupid. Then we got 2 minutes of him in the suit (and why didn't dying Norman just try the damn suit?) that resulted in a web that looked like a hand reaching for Gwen. Her death was honestly the best done part of the film because it was shocking but well-handled.

Sigh, rant over.

_________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Posted: Thu May 08, 2014 10:16 pm

Message

Mara Jade SkywalkerAdministrator

Joined: 15 Feb 2008Posts: 6205Location: Beyond Shadows

I didn't like Amazing Spider-Man 2. It didn't know what it wanted to be! Electro was cool, and the music was pretty awesome, but...the movie as a whole was all over the place. It suffered the flaws of Spider-Man 3, except not quite as bad.

Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)

Dane DeHaan was just a bad, bad Harry. His motives made no sense, his bromance with Peter was rushed and strange, his acting was bad, his sprint toward death was unexplained, his appearance as the Goblin was so quick and so pointless as to be laughable...he shouldn't have been in the movie at all.

I realize Andrew Garfield is British, but his accent was spot on in the original film. In this one he kept dropping into a gangster/ghetto accent that didn't fit and was spotty at best. Very distracting.

The magical subway car that still miraculously worked and never lost internet connection after 15 years?! I'm impressed. Really I am.

Quite a bit of bad dialogue...but I'll forgive that. I liked that they tried to go for a comic book feel, I liked that Spidey was sarcastic and almost rude. But the movie didn't know what it wanted to be.

Gwen's death was the only real exceptional part of the film. I kind of guessed it was coming, but they did an excellent job all the same.

_________________"It's not about the legacy you leave, it's about the life you live." ~Mara Jade Skywalker

Posted: Fri May 09, 2014 1:30 pm

Message

Jedi JoeMaster

Joined: 11 Jun 2009Posts: 1652

More about TASM2:

Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)

I agree, Gwen's death scene was wonderfully done. I can't help but think that it was too quick, though. This film was so convoluted that while Gwen and Peter's chemistry was good, there wasn't much room for development. Like I said before, it was a wasted opportunity.

Within TASM2, I saw two great stories. The first was the fun, action-packed Electro/Rhino arc that introduced Harry Osborne. The second was the darker, more dramatic Goblin/Sinister 6 arc, where Harry kills Gwen. The problem was trying to put those stories into a single film. I think we would have gotten much better pacing and character development if those stories were separated into two films.

_________________Darth Vegas the unwise...

Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 1:55 am

Message

Dog-Poop_WalkerMaster

Joined: 28 Jan 2012Posts: 1481Location: Soul of Cinder

Reepicheep wrote:

I watched my first Hayao Miyazaki movie, Howl's Moving Castle, last night. I was mesmerized. It was like nothing I had ever seen before.

You should definitely see his other stuff. I think you'd probably like just about all of it.

Pom Poko is my favorite, though._________________The spirit can die when the force that's crushing it is great enough. By raining bullets down on the silent faces, already turned away from the world, you thought you could destroy the face of our truth. But we have faith in a different force. That hopeless hope is what sustains us now. My comrades are more numerous than your bullets, and more patient than your executioners.

Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 5:37 am

Message

ReepicheepMaster

Joined: 05 Feb 2008Posts: 7613Location: Sailing into the unknown

^ I will, for sure. _________________
Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Posted: Mon May 12, 2014 9:06 am

Message

Taral-DLOSMaster

Joined: 23 Nov 2010Posts: 1943Location: Ontario, Canada

Caedus_16 wrote:

I'll have to disagree with most of what you said Taral. While I enjoyed Spidey's one-liners and his relationship with Gwen the rest was bunk. It was cut worse than Man of Steel, the pacing was absolutely awful and it ruined the movie. You can have all the good moments you want, if you don't put them together right then you still have a messy movie. The references were find, but the excess of them didn't balance.

Also..

Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)

While Dane DeHaan plays Harry better than Franco his Goblin was awful, and the entire origin was so circumstantial it felt stupid. Then we got 2 minutes of him in the suit (and why didn't dying Norman just try the damn suit?) that resulted in a web that looked like a hand reaching for Gwen. Her death was honestly the best done part of the film because it was shocking but well-handled.

Sigh, rant over.

Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)

I actually didn't find her death the least bit shocking. I felt that the writers made the decision to kill her in at least the second (if not third) film unavoidable, if only by choosing to name the character Gwen Stacy (instead of Mary Jane Watson). Gwen is most famous for her death (most likely a snapped neck when the web caught her), so not killing her would be a big Eff You to their hardcore fanbase.

But we'll have to agree to disagree. I had fun, that's all I can say, really._________________"I'm...from Earth."